Top 5 anti-Affirmative Action Myths About SCA5 | #NoLiesNoHate

Photo credit: USA Today
Photo credit: USA Today

Nearly twenty years ago, California voters passed Proposition 209, a ballot measure that effectively outlawed affirmative action in state-run institutions. Among other effects of Prop 209 was the loss of affirmative action policies — the ability for college admissions officers from being able to consider race among other application criteria — in the state-wide UC college system.

Prop 209 has had a devastating effect on UC schools: Black, Latino, Native American, Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander admission rates have dropped precipitously relative to the pace of their population growth over the last twenty years, resulting in a public, taxpayer-funded university system that has effectively excluded many of the state’s underrepresented minority community — roughly 45% of the state’s total population — from access to quality secondary education.

Currently, the California House and Senate are considering Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA5), a bill that would create an exemption for public education from Prop 209, re-empowering the UC system to once again employ reasonable affirmative action policies in their admissions process. Should SCA5 pass the California Senate later this year, it will be put on the November ballot for public consideration. Passage of SCA5 is a necessary first step to restore access and equality for California’s underrepresented minorities to a college education.

Unfortunately, although 61% of Asian American voters in California voted against Proposition 209 in 1996 to protect affirmative action, recent efforts by conservative Asian Americans — predominantly Chinese American non-profits and news outlets — have resulted in a widespread campaign of misinformation and outright fear over SCA5 in many Asian American voters.

To set the record straight, here are the top 5 myths — and facts — about SCA5, and why you should support it.

Myth #1: SCA5 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional (from SiliconIndia).

Fact: SCA5 will not empower UC colleges to legally violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for a few reasons: 1) state law does not supercede federal law or the U.S. Constitution, and 2) affirmative action programs are currently practiced in many public universities throughout the country without violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, in the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger U.S. Supreme Court case of 2003, use of racial information as one of many criteria considered in college admissions was found to not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Wrote Supereme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the majority decision:

[The U.S. Constitution] does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.

Myth #2: SCA5 will prevent an Asian American applicant from college admission “because they are Asian” (letter imaged below).

This letter, which is one of the tackiest exploitation of a child in a political campaign I've ever seen, has gone viral in the last day.
This letter, which is one of the tackiest exploitation of a child in a political campaign I’ve ever seen, has gone viral in the last day.

Fact: There is zero evidence that any college admission officer has ever rejected an applicant just because they are Asian. Zero.

Many anti-affirmative action Asian Americans cite a decade old study by Thomas Espenshade that purportedly presents evidence of an anti-Asian bias in college admissions. However, there are several flaws with this study: first, Espenshade generalizes findings from seven private Ivy League elite institutions to all colleges, including public and state universities that have broader and more inclusive admissions criteria. In addition, supporters of Espenshade’s data have failed to consider the impact of the far larger number of Asian American college applicant pool on the calculation of Asian American admission rates. Finally, Espenshade failed to consider the state of origin of Asian American applicants studied; international students often have, by virtue of their nationality, separate challenges to college admission in the United States. I have written a two-part post documenting the problems with using the Espenshade study as evidence of widespread anti-Asian bias that I strongly encourage you to read.

Either way, even if you believe Espenshade’s data, they do not point to any explicit or implicit college admissions process wherein an Asian American applicant is ever rejected based solely on his or her race.

Myth #3: SCA5 will legalize racial quotas that will cap Asian American admissions to the UC system to the size of their state-wide population (email reproduced at 8Asians).

Fact: This form of affirmative action, which sets an a priori cap on accepted students of a certain race, is called a racial quota system, and it has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. This form of affirmative action was not practiced in the UC school system prior to Prop 209, and is not practiced in any non-California college that currently employs affirmative action in their admissions.

Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, the size of the Asian American population on UC campuses was roughly 20%, roughly double the size of the state’s overall Asian American population — 9% of the state’s total population — at the time. Currently, most schools also have a similarly large Asian American population relative to our population size, strongly arguing against any school’s use of a supposed “racial quota” system relative to national or state-wide demographics.

I graphed these data as they were reported in CollegeBoard.com. Clearly, there are no racial quotas linked to population size being used in Ivy League schools: at the time of these data, the Asian American student body at the Ivies was 3x to 4x of the national population.

In short, there is no reason to think that a racial quota will be implemented in California UC schools following passage of SCA5.

Myth #4: Affirmative action lets in “unqualified” or “less qualified” Black and Latino students over more qualified Asian Americans, and a college admissions system that only considers grades and SATs is more fair and objective (from 80-20).

Fact: Again, because racial quotas are unconstitutional, there is no evidence of Black and Latino students being admitted to college based solely on their race. Instead, most colleges use race as only one of several factors they consider in making admission decisions. Further, the assumption that Black and Latino students who are admitted in part as beneficiaries of affirmative action assumes — in a highly racist manner — that these students are, by default, not intelligent enough or prepared enough for college, a racial stereotype that no one should engage in. Yet, many make the assumption that underrepresented minorities who benefit from affirmative action are less qualified, and they base those assumptions on SAT test scores.

The SATs has its origins as an Army-implemented IQ test, and was adapted to widespread use under the assumption that it was a fair aptitude test that objectively measured intelligence. However, numerous groups including parents, students, teachers, and colleges have pointed out the glaring problems in the SATs, and the myth of its objectivity.

First of all, the SATs are easily “hacked” by students who pay thousands of dollars to SAT prep courses to improve their scores. This New York Times article reveals how students are taught exam prep tricks — not knowledge — to improve their score, and how certain aspects of the SATs can even reward you for wrong information, particularly in the exam’s essay section that were specifically introduced to improve the SATs’ ability to measure a student’s aptitude (emphasis mine).

[Les] Perelman had been conducting research that highlighted what he believed were the inherent absurdities in how the [SAT] essay questions were formulated and scored. His earliest findings showed that length, more than any other factor, correlated with a high score on the essay. More recently, Perelman coached 16 students who were retaking the test after having received mediocre scores on the essay section. He told them that details mattered but factual accuracy didn’t. “You can tell them the War of 1812 began in 1945,” he said. He encouraged them to sprinkle in little-used but fancy words like “plethora” or “myriad” and to use two or three preselected quotes from prominent figures like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, regardless of whether they were relevant to the question asked. Fifteen of his pupils scored higher than the 90th percentile on the essay when they retook the exam, he said.

With the Kaplan prep course producing significant improvement in student scores in a billion dollar industry, the SATs are no longer an objective measure of student aptitude (if indeed they ever were). Instead, the SATs most closely predict the economic privilege of the student taking the test; those who can afford exam prep courses do better. In addition, the SATs have been widely criticized for the cultural and racial bias in their questions, and it goes without saying that the SATs, being available only in English, puts ESL students — many of whom are AAPI — at a serious disadvantage. Furthermore, the SATs and high school grades have been found to be an extremely poor predictor of college success: a recent study shows that colleges that have chosen not to consider SAT scores have “virtually no difference” in college dropout rates as those that do.

Thus, using grades and SAT test scores as the sole basis for college admissions isn’t more objective. Instead, it limits admissions officers to subjective and unfair criteria that disproportionately advantages wealthy applicants, and that studies have shown fail to produce meaningful predictions of aptitude.

Myth #5: Affirmative action only helps Blacks and Latinos, and hurts all Asian American/Pacific Islanders.

Fact: Despite the race-baiting of groups like 80-20, which took great pains to point out that SCA5’s sponsor is Hispanic, affirmative action is not a policy that only helps Black and Latino students. Affirmative action policies help all underrepresented identities from a diversity of backgrounds, and (under Title IX) has most notably helped achieve admissions parity for female students in higher education. Currently, students of many racial identities are underrepresented in UC colleges, including many ethnicities that identify with the larger Asian American and Pacific Islander racial identities, and restoring affirmative action to the UC college system will help many of these AAPI students.

More importantly, homogeneous student bodies breed homogeneity in thought. Encouraging diversity in the UC student body will foster a broader representation of divergent viewpoints in UC classrooms, critical for high-quality education. A college education is not just about earning grades and degrees: it is about expanding a student’s horizons through academic debate and dialogue. Asian American students, even East Asians who are not beneficiaries of conventional affirmative action programs, will have access to a far improved college education when campus diversity is improved. Writes the National Commission on Asian American Pacific Islander Research in Education:

[R]esearchers found that informal interactional diversity – attending a cultural awareness workshop, discussing issues related to race, and socializing with people of different races – was a positive predictor of higher levels of intellectual engagement, academic skills, civic engagement, and racial/cultural engagement for Asian American college students.

Despite the fear-mongering of extremist anti-affirmative action Asian American groups in recent weeks, I am optimistic that most of California’s AAPI voters will see through the hate and vote to restore affirmative action to the UC. Indeed, in a recent comprehensive study of Asian Americans, the National Asian American Survey found that roughly 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action programs.

Please don’t let the lies and misinformation surrounding SCA5 continue to position Asian Americans against other minority communities. Even if you’re not a California voter, Asian Americans need to stand in support of affirmative action, and against hateful and misinformed race-baiting rhetoric. Spread this post widely and tweet your own support of SCA5 to #NoLiesNoHate and #StandWithSCA5.

More Links:

And from AAAJ:

Race still matters infographic - revised AAAJ logo-1
Click for full-screen version.
Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • pzed

    I spoke about the ROI of investing in low performing kids versus the high performing ones. As it happens, an article about this very issue came out yesterday. And so we hear of this:

    Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have national laws requiring that children be screened for giftedness, with top scorers funneled into special programs. China is midway through a 10-year “National Talent Development Plan” to steer bright young people into science, technology, and other in-demand fields. In a 2010 speech announcing the scheme, former President Hu Jintao called talent “the most important resource and…a key issue that concerns the development of the Party and country.”

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03/15/the-poor-neglected-gifted-child/rJpv8G4oeawWBBvXVtZyFM/story.html

  • John Luo

    @Jenn I see self-conflicting arguments here:

    Affirmative action is not interested in fixing campus demographics, but it does RESULT in changes in campus demographics that favour campus diversity — itself a good thing. So asking “when is there enough diversity” builds a quota straw-man based on a flawed understanding of the purpose of affirmative action.

    So, AA proponents doesn’t have a racial view but they have to use race as a factor in college admissions? Look at all statistics brought up to explain why SCA5 is necessary, I cannot see one piece of data that doesn’t talk about race. That is exactly what I see the irony here, when talking about the necessity of SCA5, race is all over the place. But when talking about the goals of SCA5, race suddenly disappears. Unless there is never a goal for SCA5, I really see your argument is very much illogical.

    It (race) is never to be used in a determinative fashion, which means that no one is admitted or rejected based entirely on their race.

    I don’t know if you read what I wrote. I said “when all other factors equal”. I know your argument is that there is never two identical applicants. But this is not too narrow an interpretation of the question. It amounts to evasion of the question. Or I should phrase my question this way “when all other factors are similar”, why should a college office consider race as whether to admit a student or not.

    Again, I do NOT understand how you can make a distinction here. SCA5 restores race-based affirmative action to California schools. How is it not “affirmative action”? Because you will it so?

    SCA5 specifically takes out education from prop 209. Education is the only area that Asian Americans are doing well. Other areas, like business and sports. Asian American are all underrepresented. If SCA5 is truly AA, it should repeal the whole prop 209. Instead, it picks the only one area that a minority group does well and let the majority group to determine that minority group’s fate. Is it AA or the tyranny of majority?

  • JL
  • crazy MMer

    40,000 less Asians, 11,000 less women attending UC.

    Yes, thanks for bring this point up that’s not been talked about much here on this blog. With the much higher female admissions rates, surely Dr Fang isn’t proposing to take away female enrollment in the UCs?

    It all comes down to political biases and the lengths of which people go to justify their circuitous arguments.

  • crazy MMer

    admission policies are considered the business of the school administration, not the legislature. If you want more transparency in the admissions process, that is a separate issue than SCA5….
    it is inappropriate to argue that SCA5 is irrelevant because it doesn’t make the admission process more transparent, since this latter issue is separate and will definitely involve legal discussion of whether the state legislature even has the power to legislate that kind of broad administration policy at its public universities.

    Wait a minute there, how is it the admissions process is a separate issue that the legislature has no business interfering with when the very act of the SCA5 trying to get passed politically makes it a political issue, no matter how hard you try to spin it?

    It would seem that to have a separate issue of school administration separate from the politician influence would be to leave prop 209 stand as that doesn’t have any inputs from the legislature.

    Your statement also makes no sense in terms of what you’re saying that the legislature have no power to legislate administration policy (broad or not), but they also have the mandate to make sure “diversity” satisfies the state demographics?

    These two ideas are totally contradictory to each other from what I’m seeing. It’s like you’re saying SCA5 is above legal limitations which transparent admissions process isn’t. There’s no logical resolution for this except it’s your own political agendas that’s talking.

    Also, if you’re saying that transparency shouldn’t be allowed because students might see them, then what does that leave the current UC admissions process and your claims it’s denying your URMs? If it’s not transparent then how are you making your political talking points that’s merely conjecturing and not based on any public info like your excel plots from earlier?

    If SCA5 is passed and there’s no transparency then how do you even begin to make the claim that it’s even working for your URMs? Seems to me that you must have some sort of transparent data in place to make your claims based on facts and not political talking points.

  • It would seem that to have a separate issue of school administration separate from the politician influence would be to leave prop 209 stand as that doesn’t have any inputs from the legislature.

    Prop 209 makes race-based considerations illegal. SCA5 would make race-based consideration legal (not mandated), which empowers the university to add it in a narrow fashion that complies with state and federal law to their admissions process.

    SCA5 is a state constitutional amendment. It is not an appropriate legislation for advocating specific policies guiding college admissions, because it is modifying the state constitution. If you want to write specific laws addressing the process of state college admissions, it doesn’t belong in the state constitution.

    And even if you wanted to legislate the admissions policy of the state university, I’m not sure how much power the legislature has to dictate the specific admissions policies of the university. The legislature can dictate state law — saying things like “we make quotas illegal” (which would be a totally redundant law, since quotas violate federal constitutional law) — but it cannot say “this is how admissions will be practiced in state universities”, because those kinds of institutional policies are internal administrative policy, and don’t belong in the state bylaws.

    You’re basically wandering into the territory of governmental overreach. The government can set laws “things we find legal or illegal” (in this case SCA5 is simply focused on establishing whether California accepts the principle of affirmative action in public education), but how individual institutions comply with state law is outside of the scope of the Legislature.

    I suggest you go back to your notes from your last civics class and clarify for yourself the legislative process, and how these various institutions are related to one another, and finally the differences between constitutional amendments and legislative bills, because even if you want to add the kind of specificity to SCA5 that you advocate, the constitution is not the place to do it.

  • Here’s a slightly modified version of a column I wrote on this madness:

    “The California University Jew and Asian Student Admission Quota Act”

    This Associated Press “story” about the California bill to overturn Prop 209 (the anti-“affirmative action” prop passed by the voters in 1996) is essentially the “cut and paste” version of the dishonest press release put out by proponents.

    Here’s what the story says: “In 1995, minority students accounted for 38 percent of high school graduates and 21 percent of those entering as University of California freshmen, Hernandez [a principal proponent of the bill] said. By 2004, they made up 45 percent of high school graduates but 18 percent of incoming UC freshmen, he said, adding the gap is growing.”

    But go look at the official stats of the demographics of 2013 incoming UC freshman:
    http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2013/fall_2013_admissions_table3.pdf (end of the table)

    So, what’s the percentage of incoming freshmen who are white (INCLUDING the vague “other” category)? 28.1% — well BELOW the percentage of whites in California (42.3%). And BTW, note that this table shows that the percentage of the selectively designated “oppressed” minority admissions is NOT shrinking — it’s remarkably level. The drop they ballyhoo is the ending in 1996 of the disastrous and discriminatory quota system that existed before we passed Prop 209 to make such discrimination illegal.

    This bill is not about countering white privilege. It’s about setting up restrictive DE FACTO quotas for ASIANS (and presumably overachieving Jews) — Asians constitute a (supposedly evil) disproportionately high 36% of admissions vs. 14.9% of the CA population. Apparently these Asian kids “act white” FAR better than even WHITE kids act white!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California

    To make the numbers being used to justify the bill favorable, the affirmative action (not quotas, of course) sponsors made the Asians minority part of the “white” majority (which is not a majority). Ipso presto, discrimination abounds!!

    Such racist dishonesty is breathtaking — until one realizes that, well, this IS California. It’s okay to discriminate against Asians in the Golden State — just as it was once acceptable to establish informal admission quotas on high-performing Jews at Ivy League colleges a century ago.

    NOTE: Here’s an aspect of the bill that most will overlook. Included in this new stealth quota system bill is a redress of the longstanding grievance against gender discrimination. It’s gone on for generations and continues even today — ask any liberal.

    But here’s the thing: The bill will require what amounts to discrimination against the gender that is too frequently admitted — you guessed it — WOMEN.

    In 2010 the UC system admitted 95,403 women and only 84,178 men — a PRIMA FACIE case confirming discrimination. I look forward to the innovative progressive implementation of this solution to gender discrimination.
    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/31/tp-bid-to-undo-ban-on-using-race-at-schools/

  • @Richard, I strongly encourage you to read this post, on why the numbers you use — enrollment data — are not the correct numbers we should be referencing in this discussion. Admission rate is far more precise and accurate a number to be focused on, because enrollment is impacted by factors not related to the college admissions process, like student decision, while it ignores relevant data like applicant number. It in appropriately asserts a racial quota endpoint context to the conversation to argue against racial quotas.

  • S

    Regarding your comment “More importantly, homogeneous student bodies breed homogeneity in thought.”

    Really? In that case, there would be no discrimination or bigotry in this society because society itself is already ‘homogeneous”. Those who looks at diversity only in that any organization – UC, for example – must accurately reflects the racial make-up of the society at large is just plain wrong. Society itself, which is used as the template, is already at that population mix. Yet we still see stereotyping and bigotry. This is because diversity is an attitude of respect and seeing people as people – not people of colors. SCA5 does exactly that – it pits one race against another and it tears at the fabric of the society and creates racial tension. SCA5 reminds us that people of different skin colors need to be treated differently.

    “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
    Martin Luther Kings “I Have a Dream” speech, August 28, 1963

    Frankly, your rebuttal to the so called “5 myths” is not even worth reading because all you try to do is misrepresenting the truth. The bottom line is simple, your basic assertion is that there is not enough students in ethnic groups such as Latino and African American and too many Asian. For example, and I quote you, “Prop 209 has had a devastating effect on UC schools: Black, Latino, Native American, Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander admission rates have dropped precipitously relative …” And if yet you are implying if SCA5 passes, it does not affect Asian students admission rate. Where are the extra slots come from? For someone to be accepted, someone else will be left out cold. Where do the extra slots come from?

    All you do is play with words – like your Myth #2 “Myth #2: SCA5 will prevent an Asian American applicant from college admission ” You don’t like the word ‘prevent’ – how about let’s say SCA5 will hinder the admission of Asian students. Do you buy that?

    Your Myth #3 “SCA5 will legalize racial quotas” – Sorry, RACIAL QUOTA is EXACTLY what it is. Again, you are playing with words here. There may seem to be a difference between ‘soft’ quota and ‘hard’ quota. But the end result is the same. How else do you think SCA5 will change the racial percentages between ethnics groups in UCs? Preferential treatment based on race is a quota system. It does not have to be a ‘hard’ quota system but in practice it is EXACTLY that.

    Your rebuttal to Myth 4 is laughable at best: “Myth #4: Affirmative action lets in “unqualified” or “less qualified” Black and Latino students over more qualified Asian Americans” It does exactly that. Affirmative Action lets in students who are less academically qualified. You based on your argument on a lengthy attack on SAT – as if it is the ONLY admission criteria. Obviously we all know that is not so. What about GPA? What about extracurricular activities like volunteering services? What about AP tests? Remember AP actually waives all fees based on income level. And then, yes, what about SAT? What do you propose to distinguish whether a student is prepared and ready for college vs one who is not? There are plenty of studies and stat. that show that after Prop 209, the drop out rate from the under-represented groups actually decreases. Why? Because they got in based on their academic qualifications, nothing else.

    As for your Myth #1 “Myth #1: SCA5 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional ” We still maintain that this is so. If SCA5 passes, we look forward to take this to Supreme Court and demonstrates that SCA5 violates both Federal Law and the Constitutions.

  • @S

    Thanks for reading and spending so much time trying to debunk a post you feel isn’t worth reading.

    MLK did not advocate color-blindness, but ending racism through proactive solution that might recognize race and correct for racism. MLK is too often quoted by people who did not understand the philosophies he espoused during the Civil Right Movement.

    Your Myth #3 “SCA5 will legalize racial quotas” – Sorry, RACIAL QUOTA is EXACTLY what it is

    Do you plan on backing this assertion up with an argument of some kind?

    And if yet you are implying if SCA5 passes, it does not affect Asian students admission rate. Where are the extra slots come from?

    The passage of Prop 209 had a less than 0.5% impact on Asian American admission rates, well within annual variability. The largest impact on Asian American admission rates was not Prop 209 but state-wide budget cuts.

    There are plenty of studies and stat. that show that after Prop 209, the drop out rate from the under-represented groups actually decreases.

    Actually the dropout rate steadily increases since the early 1990’s with no discernible impact of Prop 209 in ’98 whatsoever, and does so for all racial groups.

    Also, do you plan on presenting any sort of argument of some kind?

    You based on your argument on a lengthy attack on SAT – as if it is the ONLY admission criteria. Obviously we all know that is not so. What about GPA? What about extracurricular activities like volunteering services? What about AP tests? Remember AP actually waives all fees based on income level.

    Is your argument that GPA and AP courses are influenced by nothing other than “hard work”?

    As for your Myth #1 “Myth #1: SCA5 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional ” We still maintain that this is so. If SCA5 passes, we look forward to take this to Supreme Court and demonstrates that SCA5 violates both Federal Law and the Constitutions.

    Yet, SCOTUS has already ruled — TWICE — that racial quotas are unconstitutional, and has protected narrow use of race in college admissions as not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. So, your only argument is: “because I say it is, and I know better than the Supreme Court.”

  • Joe

    What are you talking about here? After the repeal of affirmative action, Asian enrollment at UC Berkeley went from around 10% to 50%. Before the repeal of Affirmative Action, thanks to Asian quote, while mexican kids with 1000/1600 SAT (verbal+math), so many Asian students with over 1500/1600 SAT score had to enrol at Cal State. If Mexican students want to go to better school, they have to study harder. Don’t say they can’t because of their economic background. Most asian students at UC Berkeley they were 1st generation immigrant no better than Mexican family’s economic status in USA.

  • Joe

    Still considering social and economic back ground of Mexican kids, their average SAT scores at UC Berkeley is lower than by 400 points Asian students. Still with much lower score, Mexican kids so easily enter UC Berkeley. Thanks to merit base system, all kinds of scholarship are available for them, which Asian students never deam of receiving.

  • Joe

    You just don’t get it. What Asian applicants want is not favor, as Mexican wants. We want just equal treatment.

  • @Joe

    Regarding your numbers and the inappropriate usage of enrollment numbers, please read this post: http://reappropriate.co/?p=4735

    This post also quite nicely has discussed the problem with using SAT scores as a metric of objective merit. I suggest you review the 180+ comments prior to your comments to get additional discussion on this point. But, in brief, the current admissions system employed in virtually all colleges is a holistic review system, wherein your SAT scores/GPA provide a basal qualification for college, but after that, are not intended for hierarchal ranking. So, a person who gets a 1365 on a 1600-point SAT is no more qualified then a person who got a 1350; the scores are only used to qualify a person for subsequent holistic consideration.

  • Black Qqt

    @Jenn, kid, I understand your nice intention of trying to help others and making this world a more peaceful place. This is good intention but unfortunately will not get you good results. When you grow up, having a kid and you will see yourself today as childish. Young people tend to be so generous because they didn’t have to earn things in a hard way. You won’t be saying these good things about AA if you were rejected university and found out you have higher scores and better leadership than those who got admitted, but has have a different skin color. That would be reality to many kids if SCA5 passes. In CA, under-represented groups are not minorities. If you look at the actual data, what Ed Hernandez called large drop in latino enrollment is really bullshit and that’s just political maneuvering. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwcA_-B-_Mj3ckQyNzctRlA0MXM/edit?pli=1

  • Black Qqt

    @Jenn, You probably have a good education which give you the nice intention of tending to others, but you did not get here by luck or begging. Asian kids achieve by working hard and also diligent push by their parents, despite lots of barriers already in place in the current system. The reality is if SCA5 passes, UCB and UCLA will go back to 15% quota with all sorts of excuses that are impossible to outlaw, which is the whole point, then you possibly wouldn’t even be sitting here talking about these things. A good country reward diligence and right attitude, not the other way around. If hardworking students were rejected just because of race, you call that fairness? Many of your asians friends who could go to UC might end up going to community college, with very high score, and get mocked at, do you call that fair? Don’t be generous with other people’s hard-earned assets. AA appears to be tending to *underprivileged* groups, but is really handing out poison because such a reward system doesn’t encourage merit anymore. AA will only develop dependence on preferential treatment. AA has been in place for many years now look at where it has got the Afro Americans now? Once a wise man said 50 years later those who are under AA now will still be crying for AA. America doesn’t have too long a history but European and Asian histories have shown again and again those preferentially treated regress, wither and go into oblivion. This whole concept of AA really never worked anywhere in the world. Give me just one example in the world where such a system successfully brought a group to prosper. In fact it’s doing exactly the opposite, and had poisonous impact on black people’s mentality, as acknowledged by many black elites.

  • ProudUC84

    Please read THIS:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8829545

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us” – Pogo

    It is very hard to help those who will not help themselves. But as the article shows, there are some who will resist the group and be individuals. To these folks I gladly offer my help and my respect.

  • henry2

    You guys are focusing on the wrong thing.

    What is the point of forcing minorities into good colleges if it doesn’t land them good jobs?

    Whites makes more money with less education than any other race.
    http://www.asian-nation.org/model-minority.shtml

    According to the website: Whites on average make $2088 more per year if they go to college. $438 for Japanese Americans. $320 for Chinese American. $284 for African American.

    What this country really need is affirmative action in the boardroom.

    A whooping 95.8 percent of the CEOs in the Fortune 500 companies are white! 1.6 percent are Asian, 1.2 percent are Latino, and 0.8 percent are black.

    Diversity in public university might be good for academics, but it doesn’t do squat for the real world.

  • This must be an article written by someone who got into a college thanks to Affirmative-Action: full of empty and idiotic logic and junk research that only fits the writer’s agenda. Face it, the U.S. is fucked as long as idiots like this writer gets to publish this kind of bullshit.

  • @FAA

    Ad hominem attacks are not permitted on this site. If you hope to continue commenting here, please refrain from attacking anyone, myself included.

  • “the SATs and high school grades have been found to be an extremely poor predictor of college success”….

    I would say it at least lets admissions know you have the talent to graduate IF YOU APPLIED YOURSELF. The high school grades show you what HAS been done. If you don’t consider high school grades or sat what will you use? A telephone conversation telling you they “is gunna try hard”? Sure it’s not a perfect system… but so far it’s better than other options.

    This author seems to have a bias hatred against the system but never express what exactly she wants changed.

  • @Bill

    This author seems to have a bias hatred against the system but never express what exactly she wants changed.

    I agree. This post was one of a series of posts on SCA5. Ultimately, I support race-conscious holistic review, that includes test scores/GPA as one of hundreds of factors for admissions, including non-determinative consideration of race and other background information.

  • echo

    Please answer the following situation.

    Suppose LeBron James’ son and my son both apply to UC Berkley, with everything else being equal. Let’s also suppose LeBron Jame’s son has a 3.9 GPA and say 2200 SAT (2400 being max) while my son has a 4.0 GPA and 2300 SAT score. Remember I mentioned everything else being equal, both are well qualified. Suppose there is only one spot left for this years incoming freshman class. under the current AA system and proposed SCA5. LeBron’s son will be picked over mine. How is that fair? you would think LeBron’s son has all the privilege in the world, has the best tutors. Just because his skin color he will be pick over a better qualified student.

    Now not all immigrants works high paying IT jobs at silicon Vally. would it be fair that some California State Senator’s child picked over a Chinese student who’s parents have to work three jobs to support him/her? just because the skin or the nationality?

  • millermp1

    “There is zero evidence that any college admission officer has ever rejected an applicant just because they are Asian. Zero.”

    I guess you also believe there is ZERO, and i really mean ZERO (becaues of the caps) that no Jews were rejected during the Jewish quotas?

    The statistics (which presumably you are ignorant of) make it pretty clear that Asians are being discriminated against, not unlike the Jews of old.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html

    So why do you nig nogs lie so much?

  • millermp1

    “the SATs and high school grades have been found to be an extremely poor predictor of college success”

    False, False, False. More nig nog lies.

    file:///C:/Users/x220/Downloads/Kuncel_Hezlett_2007__Science.pdf

    You’ll have to ask your adjunct professor in gender studies after he gets back from his Thai sex vacation why he lies to you so much.